On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:43:50AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:37:41AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:23:51PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > + xfs_qm_dqdestroy(dqp); > > > > return (0); > > > > } > > > > > > While there, you may as well make that a "return 0;" > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > - mutex_unlock(&xqm->qm_dqfrlist_lock); > > > > - mutex_destroy(&xqm->qm_dqfrlist_lock); > > > > kmem_free(xqm); > > > > } > > > > > > Don't we still need that mutex_destroy() call there? > > > > We never needed it - Linux does an implicit mutex_destory when freeing > > memory containing a mutex. > > Does this count as a revied-by now? Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
